November 17, 2006
Alderman Frank Kunz
Springfield City Council
Municipal Center West, Room 106
300 S. Seventh
Springfield, IL 62701
Dear Alderman Kunz:
On behalf of over 14,000 physician members of the Illinois State Medical Society, I am writing to
document our strong opposition to your proposed ordinance to amend Springfield’s smoking ban to
exclude “public places and places of employment that are permanently restricted to persons 18 years of age and older.”
The U.S. Surgeon General’s 2006 report has determined that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Additionally, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) acknowledges that no ventilation technology exists that can
remove the cancer-causing chemicals from the air.
Employees in smoke-filled workplaces are at increased risk. One study has estimated that working in a smoke-filled bar for eight hours is equivalent to smoking sixteen cigarettes.
Despite what exemption proponents have claimed, several credible independent economic studies
drawn from communities that already have smoking bans show that the elimination of smoking in
workplaces and public places, including restaurants and bars, does not harm a community’s economy or result in the net loss of jobs in these businesses.
Fifty-five percent of Illinois residents remain completely unprotected from the health risks associated
with secondhand smoke. Millions of our health care dollars are being used to treat diseases directly
attributable to tobacco products. Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke is good for our wellbeing and is sound economic policy.
Let’s heed the warning signs and the science of tobacco-induced disease. The entire state of Illinois
looks to Springfield, our capitol, as leaders in the smoke-free movement. A move in the opposite
direction is irresponsible and sends a strong “not in my backyard” message to the rest of the state. It’s time to follow the vast majority of local residents and maintain the state’s leadership for the healthy anti-smoking initiative already in practice.
It seems almost redundant to list the benefits of smoke-free air, as this debate already occurred prior to the passage of the smoke-free Springfield ordinance. However, in light of your proposal, Alderman
Kunz, I believe it imperative to reiterate some of the benefits of smoke-free laws:
- Less Heart Attacks
Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, compromise circulation, and reduce heart rate variability, increasing the risk of heart attack.1
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of
developing heart disease by 25-30 percent.1
- Lower Cancer Rates
The lung cancer rate in California fell 19.5% between 1988 and 1999 due in part to smoke-free laws. That’s 10% below the nation and 20% below Illinois.2
Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke
than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.1
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of
developing lung cancer by 20-30 percent.1
- Less Asthma Attacks
Secondhand smoke contains chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the
airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can
lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.1
- Healthier Children
Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.1
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, ear problems, and more
sever asthma.1
- Healthier Workers
Smoke-free bars and restaurants have 90% less indoor air pollution.3
Complaints of wheezing, asthma attacks, excessive coughing, and shortness of breath among
bartenders in San Francisco dropped 60% just two months after bars went smoke-free.4
After New York State went smoke-free, hospitality workers who reported irritation of the eye,
nose, and throat declined by 62%, 34%, and 45% respectively.5
If this is not compelling enough, we have attached the “6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General
Report” regarding the dangers of smoking taken from a report entitled, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General.”
I urge you to do the right thing and maintain the leadership position the council has exhibited and
continue to keep the citizens of Illinois healthy and smoke-free.
Sincerely,
Peter E. Eupierre, M.D.
President, Illinois State Medical Society
Enclosure
cc: William E. Kobler, M.D.
Rodney C. Osborn, M.D
Alexander R. Lerner
1The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2006
2 California State Department of Health, February, 2004
3 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 53(44), November 12, 2004
4 Journal of the American Medical Association 280(22), December 9, 1998
5 New York State Department of Health, November, 2004
Twenty North Michigan Avenue, Suite 700 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Web site: www.isms.org
Telephone: 312-782-1654 Toll Free: 800-782-ISMS Fax: 312-782-2028